An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

This amazing clip was on Google Video, but was removed within hours of the story breaking. A You Tube upload (still processing) is embedded above but we fully expect this to be removed soon. You can watch it for the time being at this link and also here. A WMV link is here (on our server) and a Quicktime here. Bit torrent versions of the file can be found here. An avi version can be found here. We are attempting to compile numerous mirrors of the video file. Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark. We expect the surviving links to quickly disappear, so we've also uploaded an FLV file to our own server. Click here to download. You'll need a free player that plays FLV files, a selection of which can be found here. Please use this download to create mirror copies in all formats and e mail the links to us.To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7.

Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.

The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure.

As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates.Alex Jones' film Terror Storm documents how Thermate was the likely culprit for the implosion of the twin towers and also explores the collapse of WTC 7.

In a September 2002 PBS documentary, the owner of the WTC complex Larry Silverstein discusses Building 7 and states that in the late afternoon of September 11, the decision was made to "pull it." The term "pull it" is industry jargon for controlled demolition, but Silverstein denied charges that WTC 7 had been deliberately brought down.

This newly uncovered video confirms that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened!This footage is absolutely amazing and should provoke a firestorm of new questions aimed both at Silverstein and the BBC. Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place?

Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse.The video also severely undermines the credibility of the BBC who recently caused controversy by airing a 9/11 hit piece that sought to debunk questions that bring the official story into doubt.Calls have already been put through to the BBC reporting the "mistake," click here to listen to an MP3. The BBC have promised to "look into it."Moronic commenters on Digg are already trying to bury the story, yet none of them have an answer as to why the BBC reported the building's collapse before it happened.

Commentaryby Larry Simons

Below is the full video from liveleak.com. Many sites like YouTube and Google have removed this video so it is very hard to access this video just anywhere. A few more sites have the clip but it's not easy to find.

Keep in mind, the attack dogs will say "Of course the BBC reported it before it collapsed, they are in a different time zone!" This is easily refuted by the fact that on this video clip the woman is reporting LIVE from New York City and it's clearly daylight behind her and you can see a piece of WTC 7 behind her over her right shoulder. Then, she moves out of the way and you can clearly see almost the entire building (what other buildings aren't blocking). The male anchor in the studio makes reference to the fact that the attacks happened "EIGHT hours ago", signifying that the woman is LIVE in New York speaking to him at roughly the 5 pm hour (New York time) since the attacks happened at roughly 9 am New York time. EIGHT hours from that makes it roughly 5 pm. London is FIVE hours ahead of U.S. Eastern Standard Time so had this woman NOT been live she would either be standing in darkness reporting or NOT in New York City at the time, and we know that isn't the case since she says "if you see behind me....." while it says LIVE on the screen.

Keep in mind that the attack dogs will also say this is just bad reporting/bad information. Also...not the case here. Bad reporting is when a reporter comes on TV and says someone has died or certain number has died and they later find that their numbers are wrong. That happens all the time..no big deal. In this case however, we have BBC reporters and anchors reporting on an event that no one could have imagined was even possible to happen. Never, ever have steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire. Now, earlier in the day the twin towers had collapsed but many thought that day (after the collapse) that the buildings collapsed due to fire combined with the airplane impact. Of course, we now know that even airplane impact wouldn't have been enough either. But here we have WTC 7. Very small fires and no plane hitting it. If one were to assume or KNOW this building was due for collapse, then why wouldn't ANY building prior or after 9/11 be suspect of collapse just because it was on fire? Answer: It wouldn't. Because buildings don't collapse because of fire so NO ONE in the world could have known this building was coming down.......unless they knew it was being DELIBERATELY brought down.

Looks like t.weddle stopped by for a friendly chat. He is getting his ass kicked at on the Comment section of the Public Opinion.

People need to understand the signifiance of this story. This is a smoking gun. It is the same as if the BBC/BTN had reported that JFK had been assasinated, while he was still at the Dallas airport getting in to his limo.

Exactly Eugene---exactly right---notice how tweddle doesnt actually address anything specific? Just the same old names and insults. Thats because he knows if he actually ADDRSSES this, he will LOSE the info war---like his buddy O'Liar does on a repeated basis. He doesnt understand that this story is NOT about bad reporting---it's about the fact that they HAD to get this information GIVEN to them by a source that KNEW the building was coming down. And HOW would they KNOW a steel framed building would collapse due to fire when it has NEVER EVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD? Answer: they couldnt have known unless they were in on the demolition of the building. Tweddle CANT address this---because his own theories would crumble. Expect more insults and name calling-------it's all he has in his arsenal. Name calling and insults are signature responses from those who CANT refute facts. Expect more of it.

Yep, tweds, and you keep frequenting the site! What's that say about YOU? That you can't stay away from fertilizer? Do you see me complaining that it's not getting many hits? Am I angry about that? Where on this site do you see me bothred by that? You dont. As long as people like Alex Jones get lots of hits (and they DO) that's all that really matters. We are in this as a team. The grassroots outreach we do is NOT an individual thing. It's a part of a large team who are in this fight together. It's not about numbers---it's about truth. Truth and numbers have always been as far as the east is from the west. Is Protestant Christianity the world's leading religion? NO! Islam is! Is Islam right? To Christians, it's not. So, according to you tweddle dum, Islam is CORRECT because it has the most numbers. Isnt that why you love O' Reilly and brag that he has more viewers? Numbers? I watch Olbermann because he is more grounded in REALITY and less spin. Ignorant assholes like YOU are stupid to realize that when a show actually comes out and makes the claim "NO SPIN" then it's usually FULL of spin. It's all a tool to work on your mind to make you THINK you are believing the right shit, when you are being deceived. I guess you attend the Condolezza Rice history school!

Eugene---do you know when you type in something on the Yahoo or Google search bar and things come up in a list? Find out how to get my site in that list. Like if someone types in my name or Real Truth--how can I get the site to be in the list of search results?

Like I said---give ONE example of what Im saying is CRAP. Im guessing I'll never hear from you again. People like you just look at things and say "crap", "kook" and "nutjob", but when it comes to an actual debate, you scurry away like some scared rabbit. You look MORE foolish insulting something without ONE example or ONE refutation. If you agree with Popular Mechanics---well, that tells me where your intellect level is. It doesn't even register. Thats why I posted the interview between Davin Coburn and Charles Goyette on my site. Listen to it---ALL of it. The last guy that listened to it said he only listened to TEN minutes of it. I guess he was scared that Goyette was ripping Coburn a new asshole and couldnt take hearing anymore. Goyette even admits being agnostic about 9/11 and he STILL hands Coburns ass to him on a plate!! Listen to the WHOLE 23 minutes, and afterward if you still believe Pop. Mechanics, well, then I feel very sorry for you, and you're beyond any help I can provide.

Anonymous March 2, 2007 10:52:00- type of person that finds humor in leaving the salt shaker lid ready to fall off on next user. He won't be around to see it but thinks it's a blast antway. So he makes baseless posts without addressing points then splits.

Hope this helps you Larry:http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2167961http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=search+engine+ranking&btnG=Google+Search

Goyette a 9/11 agnostic, LMAO, Sounds to me like he's the one who got his ass handed to him and if you think he sounds like a 9/11 agnostic you're deluded... oh wait you are deluded... evidenced by this X-Files wannabe website.

anonymous----as your name indicates "anonymous"---nobody knows who you are---and we like it that, because nobody cares. Great salt shaker analogy Eugene, but let me add another analogy. He's also the kinda person that will complain that Dennis Franz' ass is exposed on NYPD Blue, but yet STILL watches! He ridicules this site, but can't stay away. And he STILL has not given us examples of why this site is "retarded"---did you notice that?

what kills me is that he says that Goyette loses that debate even AFTER he makes the GREATEST point of all on it--by asking "Where did they get the original DNA of the hijackers to match the DNA found in the rubble of the WTC?" Yet Coburn just IGNORES, IGNORES, IGNORES. Maybe thats why anonymous loves Coburn----he also IGNORES! Why, also, did Coburn CANCEL the 3 other interviews scheduled the SAME day after the one he had with Goyette? Did he cancel them to read more of his book called "How to use propaganda and bullshit, made-up explanations to win debates with people MUCH smarter than you"?

you dont have to put your sorry ass post on more than one thread---since its on TWO already---OFF it goes! Address a point I make and I wont be forced to delete. Im all for free speech and not censoring, but not when you post the same shit 3 times.

No, Bill O Reilly doesnt even wanna hear shit ONE time, let alone THREE times. I left TWO of your same posts up! The third thread is where I draw the line, dumbass. So, you ADMIT that O' Reilly censors huh? HE ADMITS IT!! LOL! And you saw me on the Herald Mail thread? That was weeks ago----MUST be tweds, Eugene! Thats ok---I put up a new feature on my site below my profile above that has a map and will now show me where the posts are coming from. Now we will know EXACTLY where this guys posts are coming from. My prediction: He wont post ANYMORE now--AT ALL. We have officially heard the last of him. He's too chicken to say his first name---so Im SURE he will be too chicken to post on here knowing that his posts will tell me where he's posting from in the world. Yep, we've heard the last of him! LOL

Exactly you're so much smarter than all of them put together... there sitting at home in podunk hicksville Hagersbush looking up crackpot websites at 3am instead of actually going to college or reading scholarly publications on these matters. "OH MY GOD THE BBC TIMESTAMP PROVES IT ALL! PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELIEVE BUSH IS BEHIND 9/11 ARE COWARDS AND COMPLACENT! ACTOR CHARLIE SHEEN SAID THERE'S A COVERUP! POPULAR MECHANICS, THE BBC, THE OWNER OF BUILDING 7, EVERY MEMBER OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, THE CIA, FBI, NSA AND PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE ALL PART OF THIS MASSIVE CONSPIRACY!" DON'T TRUST THE N.Y. TIMES, ABC, CNN, FOX NEWS, MSNBC, OR YOUR OWN SENSE OF REASON AND INTELLIGENCE EVERONE... TRUST LARRY AND THE TRUTH SHAL SET YOU FREE!!!

Dude seriously, I saw your picture... you're young and that gives you somewhat of a pass but that still doesn't mean you're not in need of some serious medication. I'm one of the folks that think Bush and the lot should be tried for war crimes for the Iraq fiasco but every bit of "evidence" you provide on 9/11 is looney toons. The people you quote and provide stories from are nutbags and have absolutely no credibility. I bet you've never even heard of Chomsky who would never let something like this B.S. conspiracy go unstudied.

Yes, let us all bow to Larry Simons who sits at home at night in his mommy's basement cuttting and pasting junk he finds on the internet and thinks he's smarter than the thousands of scientists, scholars, journalists and eyeball witnesses who know more about 9/11 than he could ever hope. Thanks for providing the truth for us uneducated cowards and complacent morons Larry. And to think how comfortable we all were not questioning authority until you came along and opened our eyes to how government is corrupt. God Bless you Larry Simons and God Bless America

It's so fun watching you in total FEAR of the truth----thats why you resort to repeating yourself, stupid jokes and TOTAL avoidance. That alone says I'm right. Would a Christian trying to witness to someone make a mockery of the topic, avoid issues and totally avoid the person they try to convert? Of course not---but look at you! You have NOTHING in your arsenal but these tactics of fear. Usually when you fear something, you make light of it and run and avoid it. I truly thank you for making our views stronger.